If you find it pointless, don't join in :-) But there are pros and cons to all and that is worth discussing, as is the apparently widely misunderstood issue of heavy metals and the frequency with which they are found and where.

OK here's an exercise. Based on this data:

"Here's a list of metals in a popular "commercial fertilizer", in ppm Arsenic 1.4000 Cadmium <0.2570 Cobalt 0.2750 Mercury <0.0103 Molybdenum 1.7900 Nickel 1.8400 Lead 0.7190 Selenium 0.9780 Zinc 3.2700 One known problem is that use for years created a cumulative increase in some."

Applying this fertilizer at the recommended rate each year (or twice a year for conservatism), how long would it take for the top 6" of soil to exceed 5 ppm arsenic or 10 ppm lead?

Assume that the added fertilizer adds no mass to the soil other than the metals.

I chose those numbers because they are approximately what natural soil background is in my state. Arsenic background typically exceeds a 'calculated health based value' which is about 3 ppm. Lead is a very common residential soil pollutant and has well known effects on health if exposure is too high.

If I google : "cumulative micro metal from fertilizer" I get a wealth of information including this from the EPA.

which states: Some industrial wastes contain elements which can be used, or converted to use, in micronutrient fertilizers. The United States encourages the recycling of industrial waste in a safe manner for use in micronutrient fertilizers. However, some wastes may contain hazardous constituents that provide no nutritive value to the plant The use of these wastes in micronutrient fertilizers introduces these constituents in the greater ecosystem. These constituents could be hazardous to handle by applicators, contribute to contaminated runoff from land application sites, or be taken up by plants.

I would say that the general consensus of the search results indicates that continued commercial fertilizer usage will create an excess of micro metals in the soil treated. To say that using a fertilizer that contains these additives is safe because they're at the same level as the soil around us is not in agreement with accepted standards. If you need a source of micrometals above the levels we already see obviously needs a source with high levels. The source that I'm familiar with is a bronze factories slurry pond which is on the Superfund site. I have the name of the previous owner from the 1930's, I have online access to the counties real estate info for the property, including maps. And I can see the property on the Superfund site. And the EPA listing above also includes into on metals slurry pond sites.

I am going to continue to happily use manure in my veggie garden as long as the manure comes from animals that also produce the meat, milk, and other dairy products I consume. Actually I'm about to get a truck load of horse manure which according to some here has the same problems as cow manure. Hopefully I can fill the pickup truck and get it unloaded the next morning before I have to quit because of my fatigue issues.

@JohnD: I looked at the link above out of interest. However, I think you have taken the paragraph that you quoted out of context: the report is specifically on the micronutrient industry, and as far as I can tell, specifically for use in commercial level agriculture operations. The specific micronutrients noted are boron, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum and zinc.

The same page notes: "micronutrients are only needed in small quantities...they are generally used in trace or small amounts [when applied to deficient cropland." It also goes on to note that most of the report is about zinc micronutrient fertilizers.

The point being: you have taken the caveats in a report about industrial micronutrients for use in a commercial agricultural context - and intended to be utilized in trace amounts - and generalized to interpret this as meaning that the same issue applies to macronutrient fertilizers (commonly applied in larger amounts and often annually) for a use profile I'd characterize as household/garden use.

Now, it may be the case that some of the same cautions apply - like don't apply micronutrient fertilizers frequently or in large amounts (or don't apply at all unless soil tests indicate it's necessary) - but it's also possible (indeed likely) that they don't really apply at all in a household/garden context or for gardeners who never use micronutrient fertilizers. For many households, existing contamination (esp of urban gardens) may be far more of a risk or issue than the micrnutrients (that they hardly ever use).

I can drive a car, but not licensed to drive a truck. And a truckdriver would know that some of the safety warnings or specifics of operating a truck (esp carrying some commercial and hazardous loads) are fundamentally different and don't apply to operating a car. You can't just generalize this way.

But if you prefer applying manure and think it's safer, by all means. And yes, anyone applying synthetic/industrial fertilizers in quantity should be careful. It just doesn't follow from your source that the risk is actually that high in a different use profile.

The link was to google. The many results for the search page seem to show a different result than the "expert" here reports. Either there is a problem with repeated use of commercial fertilizer or it's the same amount as in the soil we all have.

Show me a search phrase that only shows results for family gardeners. It's easier to study a large farm in an area of large farms than it is to run around looking in backyards for veggie gardens.

I looked at the exact EPA report you quoted (I saw the identical text).

Again, believe what you want. But from what I saw in that report, 'commercial' fertilizer is too broad a term, issues about macronutrient and micronutrient fertilizers are distinct and different. Concerned about micronutrient fertilizers? Don't use them.

Unfortunately, it's a fact that most scientific studies look at issues for commercial agriculture; more scope for having proper controls to get repeatable results. Likewise, they also don't usually study common garden agricultural techniques - too many variables or not applicable to commercial agriculture. Every compost pile is a bit different. I've heard the comment that hegelkultur is 'unscientific' (don't remember if it came up in this thread but recently anyway) - whereas I think it's not studied much because it's basically not a method applicable to large-scale agriculture.

For the record, I'm not pushing one approach or the other. I don't use much synthetic fertilizer and don't want to. I'm just skeptical about some claims about them as being unequivocally bad, although they also can be misused and harmful in some circumstances.

The point I'm trying to make is that commercial fertilizers contain more metals than common in our soils, and that they must come from a source that is very high in those metals. If you want to put a teaspoon of some metals, or maybe a cupful into that fertilizer bag then the source those metals came from is very high. Those sources are on the Superfund list, contrary to the statements of the highly educated expert above.

The problem is the point you are attempting to make is inaccurate!! Have you ever read a fertilizer label? Do you have any concept of the concentrations of the micronutrients that might be included?? They are almost infinitesimal in proportion to the macros!

Here is a copy of a lable from a hugely popular liquid synthetic commercial fertilizer intended specifically for home gardeners and with a full compliment of necessary-to-plant-health micros. Study carefully the percentages of those micronutrients you seem to think are being applied or overapplied willynilly.

Even if you dumped the entire container into the garden without dilution - not recommended, btw - you would still not be overapplying any micros to the point of concern.

And as mentioned previously, which you chose to overlook or ignore, the micros are obtained from all sorts of sources NOT related to any Superfund sites, if they are obtained from them at all!

Soil Micronutrients

I see you've gone up to an IF!

Again, google : "cumulative micro metal from fertilizer" and look at the returns still on the google page. I see a lot of concern about too much micrometals on agricultural land.

And I'm still wondering why you bash manure, an organic soil improvement and defend commercial fertilizer? Especially on this site.

If I'm wanting to raise the salt level in a recipe I don't keep adding more flour. I add a SMALL AMOUNT of salt.

If you want a green thumb, you need to get it brown first.

When you're losing the argument you resort to calling folks stupid. The source of the metals in a bag of fertilizers is tailings ponds and mine entrances. Places where there's a supply of the material that is higher than your gardens or mine.

Here's an article that talks of cleaning out former gold and silver mine sites in California and Nevada and using it for fertilizer. The site I'm familiar with was a bronze factories tailings pond from the 1930's.

The article makes it sound like in no time these sites will be cleaned up. The truth is that they take a small quantity every year for decades. The site I know wound up being remediated by hauling 1000's of cu yards of rock and dirt from what was a former coal mine site. That started in 1999. The tailings site was a 31 acre site and later sold for $30,000 a pittance for land in suburban Pittsburgh.

>>The source of the metals in a bag of fertilizers is tailings ponds and mine entrances. Places where there's a supply of the material that is higher than your gardens or mine.

1. Here is where the bad assumption rests. My point (several days ago) was that the values for toxic metals that you quoted are NOT higher than gardens. Pb was quoted at 0.7 ppm; background in my soil is 15-30 ppm. Arsenic, 1.4 ppm; background in my area is 5-10 ppm. I could look up more metals but you get the point: What's in that product is LOWER THAN WHAT'S IN MY SOIL NATURALLY. Given the tiny rates of application of chemical fertilizers, it would take a very long time to build up levels to any noticeable extent.

2. I am not advocating synthetic fertilizer nor am I uncaring about its source. In fact I work for the government protecting the public from contaminated sites.

3. Everything at a Superfund site isn't necessarily contaminated.

4. Manure and compost also have traces of toxic metals. I don't have any data on me but I'll bet the cost of an analysis.

Overall, your approach is more qualitative than quantitative: "This is bad, don't use it." Well, it's a lot more complex than that if you choose to look closer, let go of your prejudices and base your decisions on science.

Where do trace elements/micronutrients come from?

https://norganics.com/index-12/index-11/trace-elements/

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-3/Fertilizer.html

http://www.nofa.org/soil/html/micronutrients.php

Oddly enough, the only references I could find to Superfund sites and extraction or production of any trace elements or micronutrient from there were two sites that were orgininaly fertilizer production facitilies to begin with!

toxcrusadr quoted me as saying:
"This is bad, don't use it."
I never said that, as a matter of fact no one did till you did.
You also said "Well, it's a lot more complex than that if you choose to look closer, let go of your prejudices and base your decisions on science."
A good suggestion for yourself.


gardengal48
How about these superfund sites in CA
Argonaut Mine
Iron Mountain Mine AKA Richmond Mine
Copper Bluff Mine
Gold King Mine Colorado

In Nevada:
Carson River Mercury Site a gold and silver mine
Anaconda Mine
Rio Tinto Copper Mine

I repeat my link to a site where the company brags about taking micrometals from former gold and silver mines and using it in fertilizer. From that web site:
"Plant Nutrition Technologies has developed an ecologically-sound process that converts mine waste into bio-mineral fertilizers,....."
"The company’s environmental impact is overwhelmingly positive; they restore properties to their owners and eliminate hazards such as heavy metals from watersheds."

I'm done too, this isn't going anywhere.

Finally. You can argue against the truth for only so long!

"You can argue against the truth for only so long!"

LOL!! Only in your dreams, oh misguided one :-)

Maybe a picture from the web site I've linked to will help! Below that is some text from that web page. I can't believe that people who claim to be so educated can be so close minded.

From the web site:

"

The discovery of gold nuggets in California in the late 1840s
is arguably one of the most significant events that shaped American
history. Now, Plant Nutrition Technologies, Inc. is looking to bring
the Gold Rush back to America…through farming.

Plant Nutrition Technologies has developed an ecologically-sound
process that converts mine waste into bio-mineral fertilizers, which it
claims creates healthier and stronger plants that bear more robust
fruits and vegetables. The firm says micronutrient-rich product also
results in higher yields of quality crops and helps create plants with
greater resistance to disease and insect damage.

“When we began, our primary goal was to remove the mine and mill
waste that was left all around the states from the Silver and Gold Rush
eras,” said Dennis Amoroso, CEO and chairman of Plant Nutrition
Technologies. “When this waste mixes with acid rain from rain, snow or
fog, it damages our lands and rivers. We wanted to fix that.”"...

Doesn't matter where they got it. It only matters what's in it.

"Doesn't matter where they got it. It only matters what's in it."

I can agree with that.

I'm not bashing any form of fertilizer, be it compost, manure, or commercial fertilizers. This argument started because the claim was made that you shouldn't use cow manure because they feed them copper for their hoofs which shows up in the manure. I'm only arguing that it would also be in the milk, the meat and cheese and many other dairy products we eat. Then there is also copper and other metals in the compost you make if you add commercially grown produce scraps to your pile. And they also add copper and other metals to the commercial fertilizer.

The reason that metals facilities are on the Superfund list is that there's a large concentration of metals in the soil. There's nothing else inherently wrong with the soil. If you took a teaspoon of the soil from the Superfund site and scattered it evenly over your 1/4 acre property you would not have contaminated your property. That's what they're doing when they put a small amount into a bag of fertilizer. That assumes there's no other contaminants, just the metals at the Superfund Site.

If there is the same amount of metals in a bag of fertilizer as there is the soil we all have they wouldn't add any, and then it wouldn't be listed on the bag. If there were no need for more metals they wouldn't go to the trouble of running off to some bronze factories slurry pond or to some old gold mine is some far off corner of many states.

John there are more heavy metals in everything that is processed,even your food. We try to keep it clean, but it does happen.

As for manure everything Gardengal says agrees with my 50 years of organic gardening.

I have used cow,horse,pig, chicken & rabbit manure, none had drugs in it, because we owned the animals & did not drug them.

I have made compost without manures & it was great.

These days I use mostly coffee waste, which is ground coffee,whole green & roasted beans, but mostly chaff. I am sure there is some metal ppb, because it is processed with metal screws.

Screws as in auger conveyors.

The waste has 8 of the 11 elements, better that some manure I have used.

jolj(7b/8a)

I have also owned animals, cows, and didn't drug them. They had the opportunity to come and go from their shelter as they wished. So they didn't get rotten hoofs in mucky barns. Went it rained or it was very cold they sought shelter. When it was feeding time they were there waiting. Not in the barn, they got fed out in the open.

They never once got sick!

"This argument started because the claim was made that you shouldn't use cow manure because they feed them copper for their hoofs which shows up in the manure."

John, that never happened. That was never said.

This is what was really said:

"In fact, certified organic gardeners tend not to use manures because the manures themselves are seldom organic in that the livestock is often given dewormers, antibiotics, vitamins and other additiives or supplements which are not organic in origin and which inevitably filter out through the manure."

And this:

"One is not necessarily any better or worse than the other - all have pros and cons, so it is a matter of what is the most economical and easy to obtain/apply material for your purposes!"

Rereading this thread, it is apparent that a number of posts - several containing some rather egregious and frankly out there statements - have been deleted. Unfortunately it makes the discussion somewhat uneven and leaves some rather peculiar gaps.

gardengal48

I've noticed posts being removed also. There was a post before my post on Wednesday at 6:30PM. I assume in the future that will show as May 8, 2019. That post was yours.

My response to your statement was :"When you're losing the argument you resort to calling folks stupid. The source of the metals in a bag of fertilizers is tailings ponds and mine entrances. Places where there's a supply of the material that is higher than your gardens or mine."

Now that it's obvious that metals are taken from sources with high concentrations the thread's being cleaned up!

annpat

Don't forget this one: "If you want to get right down to it, most manures carry a full range of
heavy metals in varying concentrations. Lord knows, there have been
enough studies and scientific papers written on the topic!! At least
with commercial fertilizers, which are Federally regulated, heavy metal
concentrations are restricted to below what are deemed 'acceptable
levels'. There is no similar regulation of animal manures." That was by gardengal48.

The reason there's no restrictions is that no one is adding anything to manure. Well not the manure that I get off the pile at the barn. Who knows what's in the bag. I know there's a lot of sand and added water.

And the misstatements just keep coming...........

The unfortunate thing is that someone relatively new to gardening may read this thread and come away with some seriously minsinformed concepts about compost, manures and fertilizers.

If it were up to me, I'd ask to have the entire thread pulled to prevent this misinformation from being promulgated any further as I and others no longer care to dispute the nonsense item by item. But that is not my decision.

happycamper, I hope you got an answer to your question that was satisfactory to your needs before this thread deteriorated into its current dismal state.

jolj

This is not a place for that statement.

I responded to a statement that you shouldn't use manure because it has contaminants. I responded that there is also contaminants in commercial fertilizer which is true. That's the nature of the entire discussion.

My position is that we eat food from those same animals. We eat fruits and vegetables and grains that are grown in fields where commercial fertilizers are applied.

My experience with manure goes back to the late 1950's when I helped my uncle unload a truck full and wheel it back into my grandmothers garden. That garden had about 18" of black loam. I'm currently trying to open a new garden that's 35x64' and nothing but clay. I've been using peat and sand to amend my clay. But peat costs $90 per cubic yard. I can get horse manure free and with the truck rental it comes to about $21 per yard. I can buy a ton of sand for about $30, but I've decided to go with only the manure.

I will drop this when I'm apologized to for all the unneeded, uncalled for remarks about my intelligence, and an admission that my statements were correct. The micrometals in fertilizers come from Superfund sites. I posted a link repeatedly and then posted a picture from that companies web site.

Growing up has nothing to do with being told the truth is a lie. But I don't expect any apologies. I unknowingly stepped on someones pet agenda.

Your last line in your last post, got my reply.

I stand by it, you are becoming a troll & I do not owe you a thing!

You're free. Agreed you owe me nothing.

But you have to agree it's true, they take metals out of Superfund sites and put it in bags of fertilizer.

I recently did some research. I was wondering if salt mines are on the Superfund site. I admit I couldn't find anything. But it's a similar thing. You take a very large deposit of salt and sprinkle some on your eggs.

When did the Dunning-Kruger effect turn so nasty?

1. Points out that commercial fertilizers have waste from Superfund sites.

2. When it's pointed out that the data posted on toxic metal content of a fertilizer to illustrate the point is lower than many soils that it would be added to, no response specifically showing how this is still a problem.

3. When further challenged, agrees that it actually doesn't matter where ingredients come from, only what is in them and what the effects are, which have been shown to be negligible in the case presented.

4. Later continues to decry the use of 'waste from Superfund sites' in fertilizer.

No point in beating a dead horse.

Therefore, for everyone's amusement, I'll relate a story on Dunning-Kruger. For anyone who doesn't know, they did a study in the 80s or so showing that people tend to have confidence in their own knowledge in inverse proportion to their actual level of knowledge. That is, the ones who did better on a quiz actually underrated their own knowledge, whereas people who did less well thought they did much better than they did.

There was an interview a couple years ago with one of those guys (Dunning or Kruger), who said that since their study, there has been ongoing debate in the research psychology community. Some agree with their findings, others believe the data can be explained by other causes. Both sides are quite confident in their beliefs, too. Which means, he pointed out, that either one side or the other is walking around wrong and doesn't know it! Which, he said, actually proves that the Dunning-Kruger effect is in fact real, so he wins either way. I thought it was hilarious.

toxcrusadr, thanks.

I may be one of those guys,because I never heard of it, before today.

I however have ran into the effect most of my life.

The old "we have always done it this way" or this is the way dad did it!

armoured's comment cracked me up :-) If there was ever a more suitable illustration of the Dunning-Krueger effect, I'm not sure what it would be!!

toxcrusadr

You and others have ruined this thread. This is very simple. Gardengal 48 bashed manure ignoring the fact that we eat meat and dairy products from some of these same animals. When I pointed out that they put cleanouts from Superfund sites in commercial fertilizer she said

"To state that commercial fertilizers are "clean outs of Superfund sites"
is so far off base as to be ridiculous and should be ignored!! It
reflects no understanding of what commercial synthetic fertilizers are
and how they are fabricated. And has NO relationship whatsoever to any
organic fertilizer product."

However as has been shown several times in this thread there are companies who take materials from Superfund sites and add them to commercial fertilizers

You said:

"3. When further challenged, agrees that it actually doesn't matter where
ingredients come from, only what is in them and what the effects are,
which have been shown to be negligible in the case presented."

You took my explanation of how the fact that they do take materials from Superfund sites shouldn't cause the mass hysteria shown in this thread as they take a teaspoon or a cupful and put them in a bag of fertilizer. You misunderstood it.

I am going to again add the photo of the company that takes metals from Gold and Silver mines from the mid 19th century and adds them to fertilizer. The company is: Plant Nurtrition Technologies

Oh, I thought you were overly concerned about it but you're not? It might be the way you're saying things, or what you're not saying. Usually my reading comprehension is pretty good. Sorry if I caused any offense.

You don't know Gardengal but she is not opposed to manure. Her original comment was intended to state that there are traces of heavy metals everywhere, including in manures (at least that's the way I read it). Not that manure is bad because of it.

I agree this has been a train wreck. :-|

guys and girls, quit feeding this troll. He/she will never quit with trying to prove the point and refute yours. JMHO.

Thanks for the support.

wow theres a lot of comments here that i havent had the chance to but wil need to get through when i have a moment. ill have a lot of homework this weekend!

looks like its gotten intense but i just wanted to briefly say i do not consider this to be a ruined thread and i do appreciate all the responses

gekkodojo, there are some issues of misconception going on here. And that is where the disputes have originated.

First, a "commercial" fertilizer is anything that is packaged, labeled and sold as a fertilizer. It can be a synthetically derived product or it can be one that is derived totally from naturally occuring materials - plant or animal byproducts, rock dusts or other minerals.

Synthetic commercial fertilizers - generally those used by agriculture but also many products available for use by homeowners - are typically a byproduct of the petroleum industry. So there may very well be some personal issues as to the source of the raw ingredients to begin with.

Not all commercial fertilzers contain trace elements or heavy metals. In fact, most do not. Those that do tend to be more expensive and since these micronutrients are consumed by plants in such small quantities, there is no need to use a more expensive product with any extra additives unless an identified need has been established.

And these micronutrients, trace elements/heavy metals can be and often are obtained from all manner of sources unrelated to any Superfund sites, an issue the other poster chose to ignore. They are also not dumped by the bucketful into a fertilizer bag but rather carefully portioned out according to the rate of uptake by the plants being fertilized.

Fertilizer labeling is federally regulated - the label is actally a legal document. But each state has its own fertilzer regulations as to the specific ingredients and the percentages that can be included, usually overseen by the state Department of Agriculture. WA state was the first to regulate heavy metals in fertilzers or any soil products and any that exceed what has been established as "acceptable levels" are prohibited from sale. "Acceptable levels" are often well below what is occurring naturally in one's own soil

It was actually the singling out of commerial fertilizers as being somehow 'contaminated' with heavy metals/trace elements that sparked the intial debate. These are found everywhere, including one's existing soil, and in virtually any compost or manure as well. Even fully organically derived fertilzers, like any of the Espoma products, can have these metals present.

The argument was originally whether it's better to use manure or compost. Gardengal48 used an argument that manures are contaminated and refused to admit we eat our meat and dairy products from some of these animals. When the subject of metals in fertilizers came up there was a discussion of the types of fertilizers and also a discussion of different methods of raising the animals the manure comes from.

Much later I found a web site that discussed taking metals from mine sites and adding them to fertilizers, which was ignored. The argument was really about who had the better education and who teaches horticultural classes. The argument got more heated after posting the gold and silver mine story and evolved into who is crazy and an idiot or moron.

This attitude continues to today. Look at the statement by gardengal48: "They are also not dumped by the bucketful into a fertilizer bag but rather carefully portioned out..." It was me who several times tried to reason that a teaspoon or cupful is added. If you haven't read the entire thread use your browsers find option to search this thread for teaspoon.

This all occurred because I had a discussion with a man involved in the mitigation of a local bronze slurry pond on the Superfund site. That was in the early days of the internet and there is no mention of it today on the internet. Had I not had that chance conversation I would not be an idiot, a moron, and I wouldn't be crazy.

"Gardengal48 used an argument that manures are contaminated and refused to admit we eat our meat and dairy products from some of these animals."

John, you need some reading comprehension courses!! AT NO time did I ever state that manures are "contaminated" nor did I ever "refuse to admit" that we eat meat or dairy products from these same animals. I merely stated that not all manures are approved for certified organic farming because much (most?) livestock will receive regular medications in the form of dewormers or internal parasite treatments as well as antibiotics and vitamin supplements. Selenium is a routine supplement for livestock, especially cattle. And these additives will be passed through to the manures as well.

No one called you an idiot or a moron. We only remarked that you took one small issue and blew it out of proportion as well as ignoring all the other very sound and science based information and advise in favor of defending your own very narrow viewpoint. What you don't know or refuse to acknowledge is making you look foolish, as are your oft repeated misstatements....like the one I highlighted.

Get over it!!

If you do the research, I think you will find that heavy metals in any fertilizer product are becoming increasingly scrutinized and tested by various regulatory agencies (primarily the AAPFCO) and that standards have been established that limit the amount of heavy metals that can be legally included with any fertilzer product. "Inadvertent" inclusion is not very likely to slip by either state or federal regulations.

If you have legitimate concerns about this - and I am not arguing one way or the other - then the obvious answer is to stick to organic ferts, your own compost or manures from known animal sources. But I firmly believe the chance of homeowners coming into direct contact with commercial synthetic ferts that may "inadvertently" contain these metals in above accepted levels is slim to none.

I got a notice about a comment, but no comment when I clicked on the thread.

I spread my manure/ compost 4-6 inches thick, mainly because I till it under.

I till because it kills 90% of the pupa that over winter in the soil, organic matters

brake down quicker. It turns weeds seeds up so they will sprout, easier to control.

Plus I like the smell of turned soil in the morning.

I'm sorry that post was meant for gardengal48, I'll add her name to the top of the post. Sorry.

Time to go on to constructive gardening posts elsewhere and leave this one alone. This one is not going anywhere, which sometimes happens, so just let it be and go post good information in the other threads. JMO

gekkodojo, give it up man/gal! Go on to something more constructive and helpful. This is not helpful in any way to keep beating a dead horse. The horse is dead! Do something more constructive.

If we're getting manure from the horse; can it really be dead?

Good grief! This is ridiculous. You need to get a real life. This is my last time here. It is so sad to see this how threads are so counter-productive for personal reasons instead of being informative and helpful to fellow gardeners. It really is so disappointing. Have a good life.

When they're having a bad time of it they suggest you give it up. Or even better! They suggest this thread should be removed.